How so? We are called by the example of Christ to have compassion for sinners, especially those who do not understand the depth and nature of their sin. Gays fall into this category. This person clearly does not understand this.Rather Non Sequitur methinks.
I don’t see that there is a useful distinction here. Suppose Byrd was attacked not by white supremacist bigots but by someone who knew him and thought he had a valid reason for such an attack … would the same action deserve to be punished less? What motivation could possibly matter in determining the proper punishment for such a crime and if the motivation doesn’t justify the action then why should it be labelled a hate crime?A hate crime is convicted against a random person. Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd were both minding their own business, and were tortured by violent sadists for no reason.
This all makes sense to me. I am not convinced that we really need hate crime laws. Crime is crime. Is more extreme punishment warranted for the offender when the victim is part of a certain group? Why should that be?I don’t see that there is a useful distinction here. Suppose Byrd was attacked not by white supremacist bigots but by someone who knew him and thought he had a valid reason for such an attack … would the same action deserve to be punished less? What motivation could possibly matter in determining the proper punishment for such a crime and if the motivation doesn’t justify the action then why should it be labelled a hate crime?
Crimes exist. Hate crimes are an artificial construct created for political reasons that have nothing to do with the proper application of punishment.
Ender
That I will not argue with.How so? We are called by the example of Christ to have compassion for sinners, especially those who do not understand the depth and nature of their sin. Gays fall into this category. This person clearly does not understand this.
Oh very well said!I don’t see that there is a useful distinction here. Suppose Byrd was attacked not by white supremacist bigots but by someone who knew him and thought he had a valid reason for such an attack … would the same action deserve to be punished less? What motivation could possibly matter in determining the proper punishment for such a crime and if the motivation doesn’t justify the action then why should it be labelled a hate crime?
Crimes exist. Hate crimes are an artificial construct created for political reasons that have nothing to do with the proper application of punishment.
Ender
Motivations ONLY matter when trying to identify a suspect.I don’t think the LAW should be more harsh for hate crimes, but to say that the motivation doesn’t MATTER is foolishness. If we aren’t willing to address the “why”, the disease, then there is no way to cure it. Motivations always matter. Some people here see an article like this and their first reaction is annoyance that this will be used as propaganda instead of being concerned for the poor person who was almost murdered. Sad.
Child molesters… yes…Um…I don’t see anybody except NAMBLA and child molesters going around trying to pervert children. And despite that fact, Jesus STILL has compassion and sympathy for those individuals. They are His children as well. He was saying that they are damning themselves in their behavior, all the more reason to feel compassion for them.
A lot of assumptions there.There’s definitely a reason for hate crimes to be punished differently. I used to agree with what you just said, but then I noticed what the bigger issue was.
A murder/mugging, etc. is usually part of organized crime. A Mafioso whacks one of his stool pigeon drug dealers. The murder is still wrong, but the drug dealer put himself in the situation by his involvement with the mafia.
A hate crime is convicted against a random person. Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd were both minding their own business, and were tortured by violent sadists for no reason.
A gang jumping or mugging that results in death is motivated by money. Same with a gang war. But a hate crime is pure psychopathic sadism at the root, usually committed against someone who was unfortunate enough to cross paths with the sadist. It is far worse.
I don’t think it is legal to give a child a sex change is it? Who would do such a thing? Are you just making this up or has someone actually done this? It’s one thing to let a child wear whatever clothes make him/her most comfortable, but a sex change? Examples please.Child molesters… yes…
This brings up an interesting concept.
Suppose two ardent Feminist lesbians adopt a male child? Legally - what is there to stop them? And in their parental wisdom they conclude that the child is ‘sexually maladjusted’ and is really a “woman trapped in a man’s body” as some are prone to say. They then decide that at 8 years old to have a sex change perpetrated on the boy. Legally - what is there to stop them? Ahmmmmmmmmmm?
Would any here say that would be Child Molestation - of a sort? Would that be a hate crime against men? Against the Male species? Why not?
No, they matter because if you know WHY someone or a group of people (like the KKK) is hurting other people, you can employ means and laws to stop them. You can educate people about why we are all equal. Know thine enemy. Legally, it might not matter to you, but from a pastoral level, it most certainly does.Motivations ONLY matter when trying to identify a suspect.
Let me ask you a very specific question and, please indulge me here, ask for a yes or no answer.
Is it worse to kill a gay man because he is gay than it is to kill him for his money?
Peace
Tim
If we are all equal, why is there more punishment for a so-called hate crime?…You can educate people about why we are all equal…
For the same reason that there is more punishment for a pre-meditated murder than for a crime of passion. It speaks to the mentality of the person doing it. The more likely it is that a person will continue to harm people, the more harsh the punishment must be. People who commit hate crimes are more dangerous people because they have a hatred in heir heart that is unlikely to change and they feel justified in harming other people based on nothing more than who they are. That is not the same thing as a mugger who gets flustered and shoots somebody he is robbing.If we are all equal, why is there more punishment for a so-called hate crime?
So, we need to pass laws to keep hateful people from killing those that they hate? From a PASTORAL level, what is the penalty for murder?No, they matter because if you know WHY someone or a group of people (like the KKK) is hurting other people, you can employ means and laws to stop them. You can educate people about why we are all equal. Know thine enemy. Legally, it might not matter to you, but from a pastoral level, it most certainly does.
I don’t see a difference between killing someone for money or because they are gay *, but I sure as heck see a difference between killing an unfaithful spouse and killing someone because they are gay. One is the act of a deranged psychopath. Have you ever seen American History X? These hate groups and supremacists are absolutely INSANE and sadistic. You’re darn right there’s a difference.*It is ok to kill an unfaithful spouse?
Peace
I see. Reasonable.For the same reason that there is more punishment for a pre-meditated murder than for a crime of passion. It speaks to the mentality of the person doing it. The more likely it is that a person will continue to harm people, the more harsh the punishment must be. People who commit hate crimes are more dangerous people because they have a hatred in heir heart that is unlikely to change and they feel justified in harming other people based on nothing more than who they are. That is not the same thing as a mugger who gets flustered and shoots somebody he is robbing. …
Does this mean, by your rationale, if Charles Manson’s followers had killed a homosexual during their murder spree, his sentence should have been two life sentences?…Charles Manson never killed ANYBODY, and he is in jail for the rest of his life be ause he is batsh*t bonkers and a dangerous man. By your rationale, he would have been out of jail 30 years ago.
This is far from the only case. Just 35mi from where I live two young men shot an older homosexual to death, and that is just one case I know of personally. When the case came to trial in Midland TX, home of President Bush the two played the “gay card” for their defense and got off with just a slap to the wrist.I don’t really understand the point you are trying to make. Help me understand as you do.
One example does not mean that every homosexual is at risk of such events. Now, I don’t really know what you are responding to. If I did, I might be better able to speak of this.
Not to mention, we don’t know all the circumstances of this attack. There could have been other variables involved, but the homosexual implication could be used to garner sympathy and support.
One could also bring up Harvey Milk. He wasn’t assassinated cause he was gay; he was killed by a disgruntled former employee.